friend of mine asked official d-link technical support here in czech republic and they answered that beta 1.10 is the last. and no future upgrades will be available... ...so in my country it is officially dead.

Beta 1.10 wouldn't be abig problem for me. But it should be a functional beta. As I already said: I am using Alt-F firmware, which offers much more features and even allows use of drives bigger than 2 TB.

I am satisfied with my DNS-323 and the firmware support through Joao Cardoso is great compared to DLink (what is support?).

In my opinion it is a very strange behavior from D-Link to launch a beta version of af firmware and not in the end make a final version with as few bugs as possible - Then it would be ok for D-Link to say that the product is out of date and no more beta or final firmware versions will be made in the future.

But on the other hand, D-Link has never written that they won't make at final version of the current beta, but it sadly really don't look like it is going to happen !

D-Link used to have a great employee that kept people updated on how the new firmware was going. Whomever they have now seems to not care anymore and on top of that, there is no sign of new firmwares past beta 7. Since this is the 3rd or 4th D-link product I've had problems with, I've decided to give up buying their crap. I'll stick with Netgear routers (Even if they are buggy as hell in the beginning, but they do update every quarter) and synology NAS boxes.

Well, I transferred some MKV's over last night. Had to say that it was painfully slow. For 42GB, Windows was quoting around 7 hours, it was shifting at approx 1.9 MB/s. This was from my Windows 7 laptop, wireless to the router, wired thereafter. I got a marginal improvement going completely wired, but even that was only 2 MB/s. I have set the NAS as RAID 1, ext3, using 2 brand new Samsung F4 2TB HDD's.

I'll try some detective work and see if there is a problem elsewhere.

I guess you allready know this but just to be sure - valid for 1.08 at least.If you have created a share directory (=anything but Volume_1 or Volume_2 - root of drives) lets say SHARE1 = volume_1/Share and SHARE2 = Volume_2/share.If you copy between the share folders like SHARE1 to SHARE2 in windows explorer it will be EXTREMELY SLOW.

If you instead navigate via explorer to voume_1/share. Ctrl+c, navigate to Volume_2/share, Ctrl+vit is A LOT quicker.

This becomes even more apparent if you copy things inside ie SHARE_1.Lets say you want to move a directory from SHARE_1/Movies -> SHARE_1/MusicVids it will be VERY SLOW Cut&paste a 10Gb dir this way will take hours if on wireless - I guess it sends the data to your PC and then back to NAS unless it is some quirk in the FW)

BUT if you navigate via file explorer to Volume_1/SHARE/Movies, ctrl+x, navigate to Volume_1/SHARE/MusicVids, Ctrl+V it will be INSTANT (cut and paste a 10Gb dir takes about 5secs this way)

So are you copying the files by navigating via volume1 or do you try to cope directly to a share?

"" The point is, some people don't want IP camera support, automated 24x7 illegal downloads of p*** and access to a lifetime's worth of photos from any destination on the planet. ""

Interestingly enough, the DNS-323 and 321 could actually do all three of the things you mention through fun_plug and various ported linux software. They were nice boxes until the firmware stopped keeping up.